I'VE SEEN THE FIRE COVERAGE on TV News here. I'm surprised you're OK with the coverage but not overly so. It's the new norm of the day here and beyond: accept mediocrity and give a thumbs-up to the performance. How quaint.
First off, let's take the emotion out of an obviously emotional story what with thousands of people who've lost their homes and have to cope with reality. It's very sad and overwhelming and very difficult to comprehend. I can't imagine what these people are going through. I've seen all the interviews -from virtually every TV News outlet. And that's where we start. Does anyone have a different analysis? Surely, someone--maybe a real reporter--can ask the local fire chief how this fire could have started--was it weather-related? Could it have been arson? Any chance wildfire could have originated from earlier fires? I haven't seen this question asked. I see a lot of reporters asking feel-good questions. Ho hum. I see, for example, Tom Vacar of KTVU, commiserating with a woman at one of the evacuation centers. It's good TV, Tom, but where's the information? Maybe you didn't get the memo.
Vacar's puff-pastry act is mostly indicative of the mediocrity of the reporters and anchors on-scene and back at the studio. We have come to accept it because mediocrity is the new excellence. We're perfect lemmings for the yahoos who are in charge because they know the gullibility factor.
Wake me when someone asks a decent question.